dark light

nonpilot

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 82 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Does Argentina have cruise missiles #1798611
    nonpilot
    Participant

    Missile

    Thanks for the help I searched around but didn’t find anything. I thought years back that there was an old program the ended because of a lack of funding.

    in reply to: Missile question #1799334
    nonpilot
    Participant

    MAR-1 anti-radar missile

    Thanks for the help and link.

    nonpilot
    Participant

    Pace Visits Chinese Air Base, Checks Out Su-27 Fighter-Bomber

    Pace Visits Chinese Air Base, Checks Out Su-27 Fighter-Bomber
    By Jim Garamone
    American Forces Press Service

    ANSHAN, China, March 24, 2007 – In a move toward openness, Chinese military officials let the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff examine their top-of-the-line combat aircraft and allowed him to speak with pilots and ground personnel here.

    Marine Gen. Peter Pace and his party toured Anshan Air Base, home of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force’s 1st Air Division, and he examined a Chinese-built Su-27 fighter-bomber. The base was part of a visit to the Shenyang Military Region.

    The 1st Air Division has three flying regiments and has Su-27s, F-8s and F-7Es. The Su-27 is the top of the food chain for the PLA Air Force, and Pace was the first American to get such a close look at the aircraft, senior Chinese officials said.

    NATO pilots know the aircraft by the code name Flanker, and former Soviet Union engineers designed it to counter the American F-15 Eagle. The Su-27 was engineered to be an air superiority fighter and the Chinese still use it in that role, but they also can use it as a precision ground-attack aircraft. The Russians licensed the Chinese to build the plane in China.

    The Su-27 does have some drawbacks. Some of the avionic packages are Russian, and the “warranty isn’t the best,” said a U.S. military official speaking on background. There is no air-to-air refueling capability for the Su-27, and that limits the Flanker to a range of about 1,500 kilometers.

    Pace, Army Command Sgt. Maj. William J. Gainey, the senior enlisted advisor to the chairman, and Air Force Brig. Gen. Ralph Jodice, the defense attaché at the American embassy in Beijing, climbed into the cockpit of the aircraft. In addition, Chinese pilots flew four aircraft around the airfield to give the chairman and his party a small look at what the aircraft can do in the air.

    While he said examining the aircraft was good, Pace said he was even more interested in the PLA Air Force personnel. The chairman spoke to pilots and enlisted men about their service, the qualities of their aircraft and their training and experience of the personnel. He said they were highly motivated and impressed him with their professionalism.

    Chinese officials said all their pilots are college graduates and that 96 percent of them are capable of handling complex air operations. The officials said pilots average 120 hours of flying time per year with most of their training centered on tactical considerations. Roughly 35 percent of pilot training is at night. They said they had about 130 pilots for the 100 aircraft in the unit.

    In comparison, U.S. Air Force pilots average about 250 flying hours per year and there are roughly 120 pilots per 100 aircraft.

    Pace thanked the Chinese personnel for their work. He said their efforts are helping to bring China and the United States closer together. Pace told the airmen that the United States and China have many common national interests and that it is in Asia’s and the world’s interest for the two countries to cooperate.

    During the visit, the base commander pinned a set of Chinese pilot wings on Pace’s uniform. Pace told the commander, and all the pilots he met, that, “while I did not earn the wings, I will wear them as a compliment to your professionalism.”

    in reply to: Pics Of PAF Receiving JF-17 #2550949
    nonpilot
    Participant

    Basic question

    Sorry for the basic question but somebody from Pakistan told me that the two JF-17s flying have the WS-10A engine in them. I never saw this in the press and wanted to know if might be true. To date I’ve read only it’s a Russian engine. His other statement he made was Pakistan government already selected the WS-13 engine for the future JF-17s produced again I never saw this in the press and wanted to confirm it. If his first statement is true isn’t that the same engine type used in the J-11B, could this be the first it’s out of China? Thanks in advance.

    nonpilot
    Participant

    MIG 27-Inside Story

    Wednesday, March 21, 2007

    EMAIL | PRINT | FEEDBACK

    Last modified on: 3/21/2007 11:07:52 AM<% on Error Resume Next Response.Expires = 0 %>
    MIG 27-Inside Story

    Speculations over an alleged fraud said to have taken place when purchasing MIG 27 fighters for Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) have been there ever since the proposal were made to the government. Now, these speculations have amounted to a formal complaint made at the bribery commission by two parliamentarians. The defence.lk website giving due respect to its viewers’ right to know the truth, looked into the details of the alleged deal and found out quite an interesting story. Here is the MIG 27 inside story:

    MIG 27 is a Ground Attack Air Craft which was originally developed by the former USSR and termed by the NATO forces as “Flogger D/J”. The aircraft is flown as one of the main aerial weapons in India and former Soviet countries. They have been proven successful in battles many a times in both air to ground and air to sea contexts. The MIG 27 Flogger M, named Bahadur (Valiant) is built in India and is still being manufactured today. The primary mission of the aircraft is the destruction of fixed and mobile ground targets including hardened targets.

    During the heated battle between the security forces and the LTTE in the year 2000, the government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) purchased six MIG 27 fighters in two packages. The deal was not between the Government to Government (G-to-G) but between the government and a Singapore based company named D.S. Alliance.

    According to the procurement, the Government paid USD 1,882,500.00 (including the transport cost) per unit of MIG 27 fighter aircraft, which had only two years remaining lifetime period as per the specifications for these fighter aircraft. These four aircraft were absorbed to the SLAF fleet in May 2000.

    In addition to these four, another package of three fighter aircraft including one MIG 23 trainer aircraft to train Air Force pilots too was purchased in October 2000. The GoSL had to pay USD 1,705,000.00 per unit of MIG 27 fighter aircraft and USD 1,005,000 for the trainer aircraft. They too had two years remaining lifetime as in the case of the previous purchase.

    Since these aircrafts had, only two years remaining life time the Government following an agreement with DS Alliance extended the lifetime of all aircraft by paying additional USD 155,000 per each. Accordingly, the Air Force had to spend USD 2,037500.00 (1,882,500 + 155,000) per unit for the first four aircraft, USD 1,860500.00 (1,705,000 + 155,000) for the second two, and USD 1,160,000 for the trainer (MIG 23) purchased in 2000 to have them operational for four years.

    Out of the seven aircraft purchased in the year 2000, the craft numbered as CF 732 destroyed in the terrorist attack at Katunayake Airport and CF 736 and CF 734 were crashed respectively on December 27, 2001 and June 09, 2004. The balance four including the trainer was grounded at the end of year 2003 as their operational lifetime ended. Thus, the Air Force was cut down in its fighting capability to where it was before the year 2000, despite the massive investment.

    At the end of the year 2003, the Air Force called for tenders to overhaul the remaining three MIG fighters and the trainer and thereby extend their operation ability for another 8 years. The same company, which acted as the middle agent between the SL and Ukraine government, D.S. Alliance, again made the bid for the overhauling at a cost of USD 1,133,445.00 per each, for two MIG 27 crafts (CF 731 and CF 735) and for the other MIG 27 (CF 737) at USD 983,445.00. Their offer for the MIG 23 Trainer Aircraft (CTF 730) was USD 1,299,045.00. The variations of the prices were due to different work scope. However, if agreed to the deal the total cost of two fighter aircraft (CF 731 and CF 735) becomes USD 3,215,945.00 (1,882,500 + 1,333,445) and the other USD 2,688,945.00 (1,705,000 + 983,445).

    The full details of the tender bids are given in the table 1.
    Bids made to overhaul the remaining MIG aircraft to the tenders called in year 2003

    Prices offered at G-to G Negotiations
    Air Craft

    DS Alliance

    Hazel UK

    HAL (India)

    Ukrinmash

    HAL (India)

    CF 731

    1,333,445

    1,228,000

    1, 895,244

    4,128,000

    +

    470,000

    (Freight Chargers)

    1,788,671.29

    CF 735

    1,333,445

    1,275,000

    1,895,244

    1,788,671.29

    CF 737

    983,445

    942,800

    1,616,081

    1,537,598.00

    CTF 730 (Trainer)

    1,299,045

    1,188,000

    Not quoted

    2, 113,896.76

    Total Cost

    4,949,380

    4,633,800

    4,598,000

    7,228,837.34

    Table 1

    The details of the Table 1 show that the best offer for the 2003 tenders was made by a company called Hazel UK with a bid of USD 4,633,800. However, the SLAF could not accept the bid as the company was later found uncertified by the principal company (Ukrinmash). As the prices offered by HAL are extremely high, the only acceptable offer was the D.S. Alliance’s. It should also be noted that both Hazel UK and DS Alliance are just middle agents who would again refer the job to the principal company -Ukrinmash on receipt of the order.

    As the GoSL decided to negotiate on government to government contracting, with two governments, Ukraine and India; two of their subsidiaries Ukrinmash and HAL respectively made their bid as mentioned on the right half of the table 1. As the table shows the best offer came from Ukrinmash with a bid of USD 4, 598,000. The government saved USD 351,380 or earned a cost benefit of 7.64% by accepting this offer.

    Meanwhile, the country’s security situation changed tremendously since the 2002 CFA signed between the government and the LTTE. While the government was cutting down its defence budget and investing heavily on the development of the war-affected areas, the LTTE was strengthening its military capabilities with the intention of defeating the Security Forces at a “Final War”. The outfit freely moved their heavy weapons and troops to newly established camps where they could attack strategically important locations as Trincomalee. By the End of 2005, the LTTE terrorists started overt attacks at the civilians and the security forces. In this backdrop, swift enhancement of Air Force fighting capability became a matter of priority.

    Air Force appointed a technical evaluation committee (TEC) comprising of resource personnel to find out a best option to meet the developing threat in February 2006. The TEC after analyzing the country’s security situation submitted their proposals to Ministry of Defence to buy four additional MIG 27 fighters and to overhaul the existing ones with an immediate effect through a direct G-to-G deal with Ukraine.

    The members of the committee were, Air Marshal Roshan Goonethilake (Chairman), Air Commodore EGJP de Silva (Director Aeronautical Engineering SLAF), Dr. DPT Nanayakkara (Senior Lecturer- University of Moratuwa), Mr. HD Weerasiri (Accountant- Ministry of Defence), Mr. VJ Premarathne (Deputy Director Airworthiness- Civil Aviation Authority), and Mrs. KDR Olga (Accountant-Department of National Budget).

    The rationale behind the committees recommendations were as follows:

    i. The threat situation in the country requires an aircraft specifically designed for the ground attack and that can operate in low altitudes at both lower and higher speeds. It should also be able to deliver variety of bombs with highest accuracy and with increased endurance or the operating time. MIG 27 has the movable wings to operate at variable speeds, higher pay load (approx 5000Kg) to carry variety of bombs (100kg, 250kg, 500kg , 1000kg) according to the target size . It also has the airframe that can withstand severe strain at lower altitudes so the pilots can attack the ground targets with the highest precision.

    ii. Cost constrains and foreign policies of other countries restrict the GoSL’s ability to go for higher technology. For instance, the aircraft with similar capability built by US or in Europe will cost over ten times of the price of the MIG 27. Further, the newer variations of MIGs such as MIG 29 and MIG 35 are also priced at very high costs and such technology is not required to meet the present enemy.

    iii. The Air Force already have trained pilots including instructors for MIG 27s and therefore, the craft will be available for the immediate use and saving the training costs as well.

    iv. The urgency of the requirement calls for an immediate purchase, deviating from the normal tender procedure. Since, the deal was between the producer government and the GoSL as well as the value addition justified the price, there was no need for trading time for lengthy procedures. The Article 3.5 of the Government Procurement Guidelines makes necessary legal provision for such purchases. The article allows the government to engage in direct contracting only at exceptional conditions.

    However, responding to the existing scandals around defence procurements carried out by former governments, the President has appointed The Standing Cabinet Appointed Procurement Committee (SCAPC) in which the Secretary Defence is also a member, to review all proposal made by the security forces. The committee after reviewing the proposals gave the green light to initiate further action as the offer was appeared highly justifiable. The Defence Ministry on such approval furnished cabinet papers, and directed the Air Force for onward procurement action after the cabinet approval was granted.

    The details of the purchasing of four MIG 27 fighters and the cost of overhauling the three grounded craft from Ukrainmash, a government subsidiary of the republic of Ukraine in January 2007 are as follows:

    Unit cost for purchasing MIG 27

    USD 2,519,500.00 (x 04)
    Cost of overhauling for 4 craft including the trainer

    USD 4,598,000.00
    Total Cost

    USD 14,676,000.00

    Note: Freight charges are also included

    Any person who looks at this deal on the surface would feel that, the Ukrainian Government is offering these four MIG 27 crafts at a higher price compared to those purchased in the year 2000. But much closer look into the matter in contrast to the work scope of the aircrafts purchased in the year 2000 and the work scope of the four aircrafts that were purchased in a G-to-G deal in January 2006 would clear any doubts about the deal.

    Unlike in the previous offer, in which the SLAF purchased seven MIGs which had only two years of remaining lifetime at a cost of USD 1,882,500.00 the SLAF this time is purchasing these four MIG 27 aircraft which have guaranteed operational life time of eight years at a cost of USD 2,462,000.00.

    Therefore, the SLAF will not have to face the problem of overhauling or extending the lifetime of these aircrafts by bearing additional cost as it had happened in year 2000 deal.

    To get a better view of the picture, the cost for the overhaul of the aircraft should be added to the original value of the aircraft. It is only then; one can realize that the prices offered by DS Alliance (Pvt) Ltd are much higher than what has already spent in the 2006 deal.

    Therefore, it is unreasonable for anyone to come to a conclusion about the prices of the MIG 27 aircraft considering only the original value of the craft without considering their remaining lifetime.

    The SLAF also found it fit to purchase these four MIGs from Ukrinmash offer since it reduces the freight cost to a considerable extent. This is because the three MIG 27 aircraft and the MIG 23 UB trainer could be transported to the Lviv State Aircraft Repair Plant in Ukraine in the same aircraft that transport the newly purchased four MIGs to Sri Lanka.

    In addition, the favorable payment terms offered by the Ukrinmash are also another major attraction in the offer. Earlier, the GoSL had to pay D.S Alliance, the full amount of the deal within almost six months after the transaction. The Ukrinmash offer provides two years of credit period for 50% of the total amount. The table 2 compares the terms of 2006 Ukrinmash deal and the 2000 D.S Alliance deals:

    D.S alliance deal -2000

    Ukrainmash deal-2007
    Fist package- 2000 (May)

    1. 10% within 2 weeks of signing contract
    2. 40% at acceptance in Ukraine
    3. 50% within five months from the first flown date

    Second package- 2000 (October)

    1. 50% at acceptance in Ukraine

    2. 50% within 120 days on acceptance

    1. 25% on acceptance in Ukraine
    2. 25% on acceptance in Sri Lanka (after overhauling)
    3. 25% end of 1st year
    4. 25% end of 2nd year

    Table 2

    Allegations made on the 2007 deal attempt to attest that the deal (i) was not the best option, (ii) was not a G-to G one as it claimed to be, and (iii) has mysteriously devoured some millions of USD.

    However, the absurdity of the allegation is bared when the deal is evaluated for its value addition, cost benefits and the cost against the increased fighting capability of the SLAF.

    i. Cost benefit for the overhauling against D.S Alliance deal

    The cost of D.S Alliance bid (2003) – USD 4,949,380

    The cost of Ukrinmash deal (2007) – USD 4,598,000

    The cost benefit – 7.64 %

    ii. Value addition with respect to the operational life span

    Unit Cost of MIG 27 First Batch (May 2000) – USD 2,037,500

    Value paid for a year of operational life – USD 509,375

    Unit Cost of MIG 27 Second Batch (October 2000) – USD 1,860,500

    Value paid for a year of operational life – USD 465,125

    Unit Cost of MIG 27 New Batch (February 2007) – USD 2,519,500

    Value paid for a year of operational life – USD 314,937.50

    Value Addition over first batch – 61.73%

    Value Addition over second batch – 47.68%

    iii. Increased cost over increased fighting capability

    If 2003 D.S alliance bid was accepted:

    The total cost incurred since 2000 – USD 12,044,880

    (Excluding the cost of lost aircraft) –

    The fighting capability would be – 3 fighters

    After the 2006 Ukrinmash deal:

    The total cost incurred since 2000 – USD 21,771,500

    (Excluding the cost of lost aircraft) –

    Fighting capability – 7 fighters

    Increase of fighting capability – 233%

    Increase of cost – 44.67%

    Having analysed the above facts, one can easily understand that the deal has done the due justice for the public money which is spent on their security. The fighters have already proven their worth in the battlefield by the being terrorists worst ever horror in the sky. Precision air attack has saved thousands of soldiers’ lives by freeing them from advancing into terror traps and preventing the civilians being victimized in the terror human shields.

    Finally, it should be noted that the neither the GoSL no any other government can decide on the bank of which a company may have its accounts and where it may get credit facilities. Ukrinmash has indicated a financial institution based in England, where the payments are to be made by the GoSL as per the contract. It is a matter of financial policy of the Ukrainian government and not a matter of interest of the GoSL.

    Finally, the cabinet papers sent for approval indicate the correct amount of the deal and it would be the same amount that would be released by the treasury for the SLAF. Thus, any fraud that had been taken palace can be traced easily from the legalized documents raised during the transactions.

    The table 3: summarize the details of all purchases of MIG 27 aircraft by the GoSL

    Table 3
    2000 purchasing and 2003 Bid on overhauling
    Air craft

    Operational span

    Unit Cost + Overhaul cost

    Quoted overhauling price by D.S alliance for 8 years

    Total cost of a craft after overhauling

    CF-731

    4 years

    2,037,500

    1,333,445

    3,370,945

    CF-734

    4 years

    2,037,500

    N/A (destroyed)

    CF-735

    4 years

    2,037,500

    1,333,445

    3,370,945

    CF-732

    4 years

    2,037,500

    N/A (crashed)

    CF-736

    4 years

    1,860,500

    N/A (crashed)

    CF-737

    4 years

    1,860,500

    983,445

    2,843,945
    CTF-730 (MIG 23)

    4 years

    1,160,000

    1,299,045

    2,459,045

    Total

    12,044,880
    2007 purchasing

    Air craft

    Operational span

    Unit Cost

    Value of the Aircraft

    CF-761

    8 years

    2,519,500

    2,519,500

    CF-762

    8 years

    2,519,500

    2,519,500

    CF- 763

    8 years

    2,519,500

    2,519,500

    CF-764

    8 years

    2,519,500

    2,519,500
    2007 Overhauling

    Air craft

    Extension of life time

    Total cost for overhaul

    CF-731

    8 years

    4,598,000

    4,598,000

    CF-735

    8 years

    CF-737

    8 years

    CTF-730 (MIG 23)

    8 years

    Total Cost

    14,676,000

    © 2006 Ministry of Defence, Public Security, Law & Order – Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. All Rights Reserved

    Comments and suggestions to :

    http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20070320_01

    nonpilot
    Participant

    Boeing Delivers 200th T-45 Trainer to U.S. Navy

    Boeing Delivers 200th T-45 Trainer to U.S. Navy

    ST. LOUIS, March 16, 2007 — The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today delivered the 200th T-45C Goshawk to the U.S. Navy, marking a significant milestone in naval aviation.

    “The T-45 serves as a foundation for the aviation careers of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps pilots by preparing them to fly some of the most sophisticated aircraft available today,” said Rick Heerdt, Boeing T-45 program manager, during a delivery ceremony in St. Louis. “We have a well-established team in St. Louis and abroad that produces a great aircraft that helps a generation of young men and women become great naval aviators.”

    The fully integrated T-45 Training System, which includes the two-seat carrier-suitable aircraft, high-fidelity operational and instrument flight simulators, computer-assisted classroom instruction and a management asset that tracks all training activities, is the only system available that trains specifically to perform carrier landings. More than 3,000 Navy and Marine Corps fighter pilots have received instruction on the system at naval air stations in Meridian, Miss., and Kingsville, Tex., before earning their coveted “Wings of Gold.”

    “The T-45 is a special aircraft,” said Capt. Charles “Win” Everett, U.S. Navy T-45 program manager. “No one is born an aviator, you become one. Training in the T-45 is one of the most important steps a future Navy pilot takes. The fact that we are celebrating the 200th delivery milestone today is a major accomplishment, but there will be others, because this plane will be around for a long, long time.”

    The T-45 Goshawk is a heavily modified naval variant of the Hawk, a land-suitable trainer produced by U.K.-based BAE Systems. BAE continues to provide the T-45’s center and aft fuselage sections, wing set and main landing gear. Current U.S. Navy requirements call for 223 aircraft, and undergraduate fighter-pilot training in the T-45 is slated to continue until at least 2035.

    http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070316a_nr.html

    nonpilot
    Participant

    Taiwan may sell F-5E fighter jets overseas – report

    Taiwan may sell F-5E fighter jets overseas – report
    Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:26 PM IST

    TAIPEI (Reuters) – Taiwan is considering selling off more than 40 mothballed F-5E fighter jets, with interested buyers including the Philippines, Mexico, Guatemala and Chile, a Taiwan newspaper said on Friday.

    The Liberty Times said all these countries had expressed interest in purchasing the jets, originally supplied to Taiwan by the United States for defence against a Chinese attack, and the Defence Ministry was currently evaluating the sale.

    The ministry declined to comment on the report.

    Any final decision would have to be approved by Washington, which places strict controls on the resale of military hardware it provides to allies, the report said.

    The United States is bound by law to assist Taiwan in its defence. China views the island as a renegade province and has not ruled out war in the event it declares formal independence.

    China is estimated to have 700 combat aircraft within unrefuelled operational range of Taiwan, the Pentagon’s 2006 annual report on China’s military said. The self-ruled democratical island could deploy 330.

    And while many Chinese aircraft are obsolescent or upgrades of older aircraft, there is a growing proportion of newer aircraft entering service, including the advanced Russian-made Su-30 fighters, the Pentagon said.

    Taiwan is seeking to buy around 60 advanced Lockheed Martin F-16C/D fighter aircraft to replace the F-5s, its Ching-kuo Indigenous Defense Fighters, and possibly even its French-built Dassault Mirage 2000 multirole fighters.

    http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2007-03-16T122114Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-291187-1.xml&archived=False

    in reply to: McGuire AFB and 9/11 #2514647
    nonpilot
    Participant

    Rare fighters

    I work near McGuire and only transports and tankers fly from there mainly they pass over the school I work at. On a rare chance do you see passing Viper, once I saw four A-10 fly over.

    in reply to: Sixteen years ago – where were you? #2530187
    nonpilot
    Participant

    On the bus

    I was on the express bus coming home from New York heading toward Staten Island listening to the radio with my head phones when it started. Everybody started talking about on the bus and the bus driver turn on his little radio he had so we could all listen. The first words about war that I heard on my radio headphones were “the bombs have started to fall”.

    in reply to: DPRK flogger vs RK phantom #2534748
    nonpilot
    Participant

    Could only find this

    One list I found with some interesting information on it but nothing about North Korea MiG-23 and South Korea F-4 in 1994?
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/1997/mirav297.htm

    in reply to: Merry Xmas and Happy New Year #2541257
    nonpilot
    Participant

    Merry Christmas

    Merry Christmas and happy New Year to all.

    in reply to: Ethiopia Attacks Somalia #2541370
    nonpilot
    Participant

    Support

    Does anybody know what shape the Russian aircraft are in on both sides? Are there outside training and support in place like there were in past wars? Besides the Islamic fighting Christians issue which is big by itself is oil involved too? Would the Russian press release any info since it’s there aircraft that are or might be involved?

    Chrom
    “There is absolutely zero reliable information about Mig-29/Su-27 kills in that conflict, sources contradict each other, etc. So i wouldn’t base any conclusion on these rumors”

    Is there any reliable source of information at all? I would like to learn about any Su-27 against Mig-29 combat. Both aircraft built by the same source, pilots trained similar, and most likely the same weapons too. Chrom or anybody if some one has an idea how to research this please let know, thanks.

    in reply to: Ethiopia Attacks Somalia #2541440
    nonpilot
    Participant

    AA-10

    Doing a quick read I think your right AA-10 not AA-12. I think outside pilots on both sides.

    in reply to: Ethiopia Attacks Somalia #2541442
    nonpilot
    Participant

    I knew I read somewhere
    http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_189.shtml

    Just printed it and out and going to re-read it’s been a long time since I read the whole thing. The Fulcrum vs. Flanker story is what caught my eye in the first place not a very common thing.

    The authenticity of this version remains disputed by different sources. For
    example, some Ethiopian sources stress that there was no and still is no Capt. Asther Tolossa, flying Su-27s with EtAF at the time, and that the first female EtAF pilot graduated only in June 2004. Equally, the reported version of this engagement is contradictive because of airfields mentioned: Capt. Tolossa should have ordered the ERAF MiG-29UB-pilot to land in Debre-Zeit, which is an hour flight away from the northern front, while there were two other EtAF airfields much closer to Eritrea, namely Mekele – the HQ of the Northern Command – and Bahir-Dar.

    in reply to: Ethiopia Attacks Somalia #2541452
    nonpilot
    Participant

    AA-12

    I might be wrong but I thought the AA-12 had a poor showing here and the Flankers carrying tons of fuel just out lasted the Mig-29s and got a few with tail shots while the Fulcrums flying back to base? I seem to remember a women pilot getting a kill in a Su-27, I know I read this somewhere I just got to find it.

    Throwing out bomb from the back sound like World War I stuff, thanks sealordlawrence

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 82 total)